About your Search

20130117
20130125
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)
the neoconservative phase of the republican party as far as foreign policy goes. most republicans in the senate and the house, like the american people, are exhausted by 10, 11, 12 years of war. obviously, john mccain and lindsey graham are on the forefront and have shaped republican foreign policy for a few years. certainly john mccain has. he is in a shrinking minority. and it's shrinking very quickly. and i suspect you're going to see a return to the realism of colin powell of dr. brzezinski, of brent scowcroft, of george h.w. bush, of the republicans who helped us and democrats who helped us through that approach when the cold war. >> and this is the post-superpower era, where there has to be some pulling back, and david said it exactly right. >> i wouldn't say post-superpower. you're right, it's a new era. it's much more indirection in our application of power. the neocons are for direct use of power. this will have to be more indirect. >> and there may be surprises there, as always is the case. look at what happened with algeria and mali. >> dr. zbigniew brzezinski, dad, thanks for not wa
justice. dr. king was a fierce critic of foreign policy in the vietnam war. in his beyond vietnam speech, which he delivered at the york's riverside church, 1967, a year before the day he was assassinated, dr. king calledll the united states the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today. "time" magazine called the speech demagogic slander that sounded like a script for radio hanoi. today, we let you decide. we play an excerpt of dr. king's speech, beyond vietnam. >> after 1954, they watched us conspire to prevent elections which could have surely brought ho chi minh to power over the united vietnam and they realized they had been did -- betrayed again. when we asked why they do not leap to negotiate, these things must be remembered. also it must be clear that the leaders of hanoi considered the presence of american troops in support of the diem regime to have been the initial military breach of the geneva agreements concerning foreign troops. and they remind us that they did not begin to send troops in large numbers and even supplies, and to the south, until american forces had mo
's foreign policy. the foreign policy is what difference does it make? hey, what difference does it make if we give our sworn enemies, people who want to wipe israel and us off the map, so we give them the method to wipe them out? what's the big deal? >> brian: what do you say to people who say hue bark wasn't a benevolent dictator even though he was good to us. should we have not been giving egypt aid all those years? >> we were not interfering with the internal situation in these countries, but mubarak had agreements with this country. this administration throws our allies under the bus. they've done it with the northern alliance that fought the taliban in afghanistan. they did it with poland. we'd deal with them for defensive weapons. they've done it repeatedly and as a west african told me when i was over there a couple of years ago, he said, we were so excited when you elected a black president. but please, tell people in washington stop getting weaker. the world sees you getting weaker! don't do that. you put us in jeopardy. we're putting ourselves in jeopardy when we're sending je
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4 (some duplicates have been removed)